Nh v. Nh

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 12, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 NOOR AYESHA NH, CASE NO. C22-01003-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 AHMED HUSSAIN NH, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Noor Ayesha Nh’s complaint, Dkt. 17 No. 6. United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson granted Plaintiff’s application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis but recommended that the complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915(e)(2)(B) before issuance of summons. Dkt. No. 5. 20 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and they “possess only that power 21 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 22 377 (1994). This means that the Court can only hear certain types of cases. Home Depot U.S.A., 23 Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019). The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are 24 established where (1) the complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, 1 laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) where the parties are diverse (e.g., residents of different 2 states) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The Court must 3 dismiss the action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction” over a case. 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a

5 plaintiff’s complaint if her claims (1) are frivolous or malicious, (2) fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. 8 The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. See United States v. Orr 9 Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff has not met that burden. The 10 complaint, even when liberally construed, fails to identify any basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. 11 Plaintiff alleges that other courts have dismissed all of her cases, so she filed with this Court. Dkt. 12 No. 6 at 43. She also alleges that Defendants—who include members of Plaintiff’s family— 13 harassed her, abused her, and prevented her from traveling abroad, id. at 3–5, 11–13, 20, but those 14 claims do not arise under any federal laws or the United States Constitution. Plaintiff does not

15 allege facts to show that diversity jurisdiction exists either. The complaint does not seek damages 16 above $75,000 or in any amount,1 and it lists her address and all Defendants’ addresses in India. 17 Id. at 1–3. 18 Nor does the Complaint include any facts to show that this Court has personal jurisdiction 19 over Defendants. Washington State allows courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants 20 if consistent with due process, Easter v. Am. W. Fin., 381 F.3d 948, 960 (9th Cir. 2004), and due 21 process is satisfied when the defendant has “certain minimum contacts” with the forum such that 22 exercising personal jurisdiction over it does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and 23 1 Plaintiff seeks a writ to restrain Defendants from abusive behavior, “[c]ost imposition on this harassment by moving 24 matter to ICJ, Netherland,” and other writs and orders as the Court deems fit. Dkt. No. 6 at 49–50. 1 substantial justice,” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations and 2 quotation omitted). Because the complaint does not allege that Defendants had minimum contacts 3 with Washington, dismissal may be warranted based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. 4 P. 12(b)(2).

5 In addition, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by a federal 6 court. A complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 7 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 8 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 9 In addition to those jurisdictional and pleading defects, the complaint suffers from another 10 problem: Plaintiff has filed similar complaints in at least two other judicial districts. See Ayesha v. 11 Hussain, No. 3:22-cv-210-TMR-PBS, Dkt. Nos. 1, 9 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2022 and Aug. 8, 2022); 12 Ayesha v. Ayesha, No. 2:22-cv-3154-TMR-PBS, Dkt. No. 1-1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2022); Nh v. 13 Nh, No. 1:22-cv-3711-DG-RML, Dkt. Nos. 1, 5, 6 (E.D.N.Y. June 21, 2022, June 24, 2022, and 14 June 27, 2022). Because plaintiffs are generally not permitted to maintain duplicative cases in

15 multiple jurisdictions, the first-to-file rule allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an 16 action if another case with the same parties and issues is already pending before another district 17 court. Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982). The parties and 18 issues in each action “need not be identical, only substantially similar.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. 19 Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015). This case was filed on July 20 18, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. By then, Plaintiff had already filed at least two cases in other jurisdictions 21 against at least some of the same defendants with overlapping allegations of harassment and 22 substantially similar prayers for relief. See Ayesha v. Hussain, No. 3:22-cv-210-TMR-PBS, Dkt. 23 No. 9 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2022); Nh v. Nh, No. 1:22-cv-3711-DG-RML, Dkt. No. 6 (E.D.N.Y. June

24 1 21, 2022). Therefore, under the first-to-file rule, the Court could decline jurisdiction over this case 2 or transfer it to the Southern District of Ohio where Nh’s earlier filed cases are pending.2 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be 4 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a

5 claim, and because she is pursuing similar actions in at least two other judicial districts. Plaintiff 6 shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, (1) file a response explaining why this case 7 should not be dismissed or transferred under the first-to-file rule, and (2) file an amended complaint 8 that provides a short and plain statement of the factual basis for each of the claims as required by 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and identifies the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction 10 over the case and personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Such amended complaint operates as 11 a complete substitute for an original pleading. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 12 Cir. 1992). For that reason, any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), the 13 claim(s) asserted, the specific facts that Plaintiff believes support each claim, and the specific relief 14 requested. If a proper amended complaint is not filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this

15 Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 17 to Plaintiff at her last known address, and to place this Order to Show Cause on the Court’s 18 calendar for October 12, 2022. 19 Dated this 12th day of September, 2022. 20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge 22 23 2 A Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s earlier-filed action in the Southern District of Ohio. 24 Ayesha v. Hussain, No. 3:22-cv-210, 2022 WL 4000032, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2022).